Soon after Police Chief Jackson made the release of the robbery footage of Michael Brown, there was a bit of a furor in the press in why he did that
so soon after things had actually finally settled down in Ferguson. A few articles actually questioned whether or not Jackson had deliberately
incited renewed violence.

Captain Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol – who does command police authority over protest events ongoing in Ferguson, Missouri, as
of Thursday afternoon – was not informed in advance that Chief Jackson would release this video, he later told media. CNN reported on Saturday that
U.S. Department of Justice officials warned Chief Jackson against releasing it. He ignored them.

The video immediately inflamed the local residents who had started a protest movement that is spreading throughout the region and nation. The reason
for their anger has been widely expressed in social and other media.

The St. Louis American wasn't the only one to report on the tidbit about Jackson actually being discouraged from releasing the surveillance video and
utilizing CNN as a reference either. Huffington Post also remarked on it:

CNN revealed on Saturday that the Department of Justice found out about the video earlier this week and asked police not to make it public.
According to CNN, the DOJ was worried that the footage would spark more violence in Ferguson.

Now interestingly enough, the sourced CNN article no longer has that particular bit of information still in the source article. However, one bit of
it does still exist in the form of a tweet from Evan Perez, CNN's Justice and National Security reporter.

Outside of the mystery as to why CNN would remove this portion of their article, it's pretty clear that their reporter, Evan Perez was both upset at
what Jackson had done and stated that it was in contradiction to what the Department of Justice had advised to avoid inflaming the situation. So why
did Jackson do it?

[quote[Mr. Jackson said the decision to release information on the alleged robbery came in response to numerous media requests under
freedom-of-information laws. He said it was determined the department was required to release the material and couldn't hold on to it any
longer.
Source: fox2now.com...

So Jackson's claim that he released the video based on numerous media requests under the FOIA and "couldn't hold on to it any longer". However,
if the Department of Justice had advised against releasing the surveillance video for fears that it would inflame the situation, then is his
fulfillment of those FOI requests from media actually a sound rationale? Just what department determined he was required to release it? His own?
Secondly, according to FOIA.gov, FOI requests work like this:

This is a written request in which you describe the information you want, and the format you want it in, in as much detail as possible. You
should be aware that the FOIA does not require agencies to do research for you, analyze data, answer written questions, or create records in response
to your request.

In other words, a FOI request isn't a carte blanche request for them to dig up anything and everything they've got. It's fairly specific.
Considering that the majority of the public and media at large did not seem to have any inkling that the footage existed as it was roundly reported
that Michael Brown had no criminal record, then it opens up yet another question--whether any media specifically requested the surveillance footage in
the first place. Additionally, Jackson admitted that the surveillance video did not, in fact, have any relevance in the shooting of Michael Brown:

Jackson said he released both pieces of evidence at the same time because the media had asked for both. However, he did say the robbery and
the shooting of Michael Brown were not connected.

“All I did was release the video tape because I had to, ” Jackson said.

Again, Jackson claimed that the media had asked for both, referencing the documents and surveillance video released, which is a strange request for
the "Michael Brown had no criminal record" reporting. And it wasn't even connected to the shooting by his own admission. The officer involved in
the shooting was totally unaware of Brown having been involved in a robbery. Brown's only crime that instigated the incident that resulted in
Brown's death was jaywalking.

So those are the questions in my mind about Chief Jackson releasing the surveillance video and documents so soon after peace finally returned to
Ferguson. Jackson has been coming under a lot of fire about what had been occurring in Ferguson over the last week and had been removed from command
over the protests. The entire string of events is now under investigation by the Dept. of Justice and the FBI and roundly condemned by even Holder
and Obama. Did Jackson have a sour grapes moment and deliberately provoke the crowd? Or was he merely trying to clear his department's name by
showing that it wasn't black or white as being depicted but shades of grey?

What do you think? Incite to violence? Poorly executed self defense gone wrong? Or ???

You mean by telling the truth? That pesky truth, so inconvenient, so insensitive, so politically incorrect. Violent criminal robs honest
businessman, cop doles out some justice. If the people of Ferguson can't handle the truth that's too bad.

I guess they'd rather items be free at the local stores. That's how they've been behaving anyway. Maybe they're all just like that angel Michael
Brown.

Technically, though, the media isn't under oath to protect and serve the public though you raise a good point, which could be a whole other thread of
when media goes too far and endangers an individual and potentially their family. However, this one is about Jackson, whose press conference with the
release of that surveillance video and documents, immediately provoked anger from the residents of Ferguson in attendance. He angered them at the
press conference itself.

"They (Ferguson Police) gave a press conference and one of the first things they did was read about this man's history," he said. "It
inflamed this community. All you heard people say was that they didn't like that. I think it's very disrespectful, insensitive and
callous."

You mean by telling the truth? That pesky truth, so inconvenient, so insensitive, so politically incorrect. Violent criminal robs honest
businessman, cop doles out some justice. If the people of Ferguson can't handle the truth that's too bad.

I guess they'd rather items be free at the local stores. That's how they've been behaving anyway. Maybe they're all just like that angel
Michael Brown.

Well, when even the truth has the effect of "fighting words" that threatens a breach of peace, then yes, it should be considered. Especially when
the Department of Justice warned that it could inflame the situation. "Fighting words" are not protected free speech.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court ruled this:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise
any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by
their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no
essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is
clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Very broad statement but the general gist of it is whether or not the social value of what is being uttered is clearly outweighed by the social
interest in maintaining order. The Supreme Court ruled that maintaining order is the greater goal. Jackson was warned that the things he released
would likely inflame the residents of Ferguson and it did.

Now for you, clearly, the social value of truth outweighed the need for maintaining order. Would those business owners whose businesses were looted
feel the same way? And btw, it was the protesters that defended those businesses from looters--not the police--and also helped those owners clean up
their shops this morning.

originally posted by: Bilk22
It's all being used as a distraction. Of course he enflamed the situation on orders.

He did state that "the department" determined that he had to release the videos but which department was left ambiguous. That's one of the
questions I have, considering Jackson seemed to have gone against DoJ advisement. Who suggested it? I also noted that he seemed nervous as heck up
there doing it, too.

originally posted by: Bilk22
It's all being used as a distraction. Of course he enflamed the situation on orders.

He did state that "the department" determined that he had to release the videos but which department was left ambiguous. That's one of the
questions I have, considering Jackson seemed to have gone against DoJ advisement. Who suggested it? I also noted that he seemed nervous as heck up
there doing it, too.

I feel like it's a dangerous precedent to set. So now public officials and media have to treat certain groups with kid gloves? The fact of Michael
Browns violent, criminal behavior is an important detail for the public to be made aware of. The police officer was being accused of executing some
harmless little lamb.

That video of his thuggery certainly was eye opening, certainly didn't fit the description we'd all been hearing.

Telling the truth is what everyone is constantly angry at the government for not doing, it's nice to see them do it in this case. I guess the people
of Ferguson would prefer a government that perpetuates a lie, perhaps that's what they deserve.

It's known that the cigar store event had nothing to do with
the shooting - well not from the officer's perspective that shot Brown. It may have had something to do with how Brown reacted to the cop when
approached in the street, but that would be brought up as some type of evidence at trial, in an attempt to show Brown's state of mind and his
possible aggressive behavior toward when encountering the cop on the street. The video footage, at this point in time, has nothing to do with the
case. So why was it released?

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.